Argun Ulgen explores the Sterling Effect, which says that only extraordinary events will jolt owners into confronting racism. Other prevalent forms of racism, like Dan Snyder’s continued insistence in using a slur for his football team’s name, don’t rate.
The Sterling Effect was predicated on a perfect storm of events. Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s abhorrently racist remarks made during an argument with his girlfriend were released for the world to hear. The legality of the recording of these tapes may very well be in question. But no matter at this point. The language—how it sounds, how it appears, how it shocks the senses—was awful enough to begin a 72 hour excommunication cycle of an owner whose notorious public behavior quietly preceded him for decades (the irony).
The cycle started with a social media blitz which in turn inspired negative forecasts of business catastrophe from both players and corporate sponsors. It ended with NBA commissioner Adam Silver announcing that an NBA owner with $1.9 billion net worth would be #BannedforLife from the NBA and fined $2.5 million dollars.
The ban was predicated on an active and urgent majority voice that put businesses at fear of financial loss. If there is one thing the Sterling Effect reinforces, it’s that a combination of Money and Majority can lead to very fast legislative-style action in the name of basic, inalienable human rights still not firmly in place in our society.
Still, there is this awful, lingering feeling about how long the NBA tolerated Sterling’s behavior. It was only by way of release of privately made statements so vile and retrograde before the public embarrassment and ridicule could no longer be stomached. Up to this point, Sterling’s racist-strewn history—including housing discrimination lawsuits worth $7.5 million dollars in settlement fees—resulted in no action by the NBA. Lack of a clear verdict is not the only issue here: the NBA failed to sanction Sterling though he’s long been Donald Sterling: Slumlord Billionaire.
Indeed, contemporary discrimination has a much more pervasive reach than brackish slurs. It is predicated on actions and inactions, often involving bundles of cash; behavior covered over by economic jargon and legal minutiae that still results in horrible consequences for minorities.
Such was the case with Sterling’s housing discrimination lawsuits. Or, similarly, regarding Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder’s insistence that those who disagree with him respect his views, despite the fact those views continue to hold that “Redskin” isn’t a racial slur that has adverse psychological affects on a historically marginalized people. As it appears, Commissioner Roger Goodell has no urgent economic interest in stepping in and saying “enough is enough already!”
It wasn’t Sterling’s rich history of contemporary discrimination—more easily muted by money and civil legal defense—that led to his ban from the NBA. It was that he got caught using vile and viral-inpsiring language reminiscent of an America at around the time of Plessy v. Ferguson. In this regard, the Sterling Effect may be exclusive to Sterling himself, or only to those exceptionally high-profile bigots who still regularly engage in indefensible, retrograde positions on race relations.
Because as the Sterling Effect indicates, there must be nothing short of a conflagration of invidious events for justice against discriminatory behavior to be extinguished swiftly and effectively. Sadly still, the basic, humanistic desire for common decency in a public forum is often not enough.
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
See The Good Men Project’s earlier coverage of the controversy here and here.
The problem is how deeply embedded — systematized, institutionalized — racism is. That Sterling wasn’t removed for the 2005 housing discrimination case is shocking. In fact, just that it wasn’t major news at the time is appalling.
Only when people like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling make the mistake of speaking their feelings about race is drastic action taken. At the very least in Sterling’s case, it should have been done long before that tape was released.
regarding Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder’s insistence that those who disagree with him respect his views, despite the fact those views continue to hold that “Redskin” isn’t a racial slur that has adverse psychological affects on a historically marginalized people. – See more at: https://goodmenproject.com/sports-2/sterling-effect/#sthash.WbiVLzIH.dpuf Redskins is not a racial slur, never has been, never will be. You see you have to have some marginal familiarity of history to know that. The term derives from a practice engaged in by the Algonquin Indians and their French allies during the French and Indian war, which for you guys at GMP is… Read more »
In a way, it’s actually the opposite. It’s Sterling with the “everyday” racism and Snyder with the “extraordinary” example. Racism in private conversation is ubiquitous, largely unnoticed on a daily basis. Wearing a racist icon on your head and naming your business after a racial slur is incredibly public and much more extraordinary. In any event, if it’s fair in one league it should be fair in another league. I guess private conversations are all that matter nowadays. Someone just needs to tape Snyder saying the word “Redskin” in private conversation and based on that have him banned for life.… Read more »